I number those below for ease in identifying characteristics and repetition of the tactics used by Kennard as the expert, which allowed Stockdale to reinforce and labour the 'facts' that never existed.
1/
Ah you have returned to "show the love" As to my source that is I'm afraid "for my eyes only" but is very reliable and in forensics, that plus a touch of common sense. There was never any thought of a sexual element to the deaths so no need to examine David for evidence of sexual activity. From memory he had showered after the paper run and before the washing, but I am happy to be corrected. Let me make it very very clear, I DO NOT believe there was a sexual element to the deaths. Genital swabbing is done in cases where sexual offences are suspected or where the investigation is into a sexual violation as female DNA maybe found linking the suspect to the Complainant. Finally the oral swab that is the least invasive method of obtaining DNA, the skin of the inner cheek is very soft and readily returns skin cells for testing, the other method is by blood sample.
Even Scott Watson whom police acknowledge they were intending to charge with rape and murder only ever gave a blood test
I accept it was eight days later, but there is no evidence Scott had showered or bathed in the day,
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 6:53 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31412
linz4me wrote:
cybernana wrote:
We are not discussing Scott Watson. Did your 'source' or 'common sense' tell you this, then? Because neither of them are reliable sources.It seems that first morning they were certainly looking at David as suspect, and in a sexual context.
The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
2/
Now Scott is some one who is innocent, and cyber when you copy this to the nos blog, don't let him put too much strain on the one brain cell he has that still functions. The half chewed horse manure falling out of his mouth is so far from the truth as is possible. I spoke of Scott as his arrest and trial were four years later the David Bain and the alleged swabs and he did not go through the process instead was asked for and agreed to give a blood sample. Nos's comments regarding me being told to go away by Chris. I know who the person is nos has mistaken me for. and can say without fear of contradiction that I have not been in the North Island since January 1993, and am not nor ever have been a veterinarian but I can get the person nos mistakes me for to give him [nos] a thorough examination which may explain why he [nos] is talking what is usually excreted at the other end of the torso by those with an IQ higher than an empty water glass.
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 10:27 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31417
3/
Robin Bain has siblings who have been deeply hurt by the false allegations made made for instance Karam claim the if the blood spots on his hoodie were tested they would reveal dna and blood from other members of the deceased family. The large number of spots made tested all uneconomic so a random sample was taken, approximate 1sample to 4spots none of the returned DNA or blood from other members of the family ALL were from Robin Bain in fact the only person found with DNA on him that was not his own was David. Karam was well aware of the test results of the spots when the reprint of David and Goliath was done. I believe a man of integrity would have righted the incorrect information in the reprint. He didn't, he knowingly, it would appear, allowed false and misleading information to be republished as if it was true. Karam took up David's case on the condition that he received 50% of all book royalties and compensation. In other words he has a financial interest in winning. By way of contrast Keith Hunter has mortgaged his home and gone out on a limb to fight the conviction of Scott Watson and has deliberately never met or even spoken to him and has NO financial arrangement to receive any reimbursement for the time and effort he has put into the investigation. He has done it pro bono as have Greg King and Mike Antunovic. Hunter has no financial interest in "winning" just the satisfaction of have helped some one who has had a bum rap.
by linz4me on 03:04 pm, 02 Jun 2010
4/
Bainoholics
14853. The swab for DNA is simply a swab on the inside of the mouth on the cheek muscles and the swab will contain skin and saliva both of which contain DNA but at that time was sometimes supplemented with a blood spot in the manner of diabetes sugar level testing. So the test was invasive, a pin prick on the finger tip, and intimate, a swab in the mouth. There is sufficient blood in the heel test done to all new born babies to yield DNA, this was the method used in the Sounds Investigation to obtain Olivia Hope and Ben Smarts DNA as a control for searching Scott Watson's vessel.
by linz4me on 09:50 am, 19 Dec 2010
5/
sophier8 wrote:
Where is the evidence that there was any intimate swabs taken?
An intimate swap is a wipe taken from the inside of the mouth for DNA purposes It is just like a cotton bud but longer and the wipe on the inside of the cheek captures skin cell and saliva but of which contain DNA unique to the person. The Police Surgeon took it as a normal part of his check to match with DNA from the crime scene and was by then a standard procedure at a homicide.
Edited by linz4me at 8:33 pm, Mon 11 Oct
6/
The procedure related to a person being taken INTO CUSTODY the strip search is ensure there are no concealed weapons or drugs on the person and can if the is a suspicion of internally concealed drugs an internal. The same procedure IS NOT done to witnesses or victims. The examining physician does have discretion on the examination and Dr Pride ask if he had any other bruises and David said "no" and in that he was correct and it is quite likely he was unaware of the scratches at that stage as he had had a busy morning and following the fight the bruises were visible the knee mark was visible but the scratches were likely not that visible or sore.
by linz4me on 08:04 pm, 04 Nov 2010
7/
ss the trick of asking a witness a question where there is a "standard procedure" to be followed means the lawyer gets an affirmative reply that can be used later to cover a question not asked because the answer would weaken their case. Had the defender asked either of the two police in Dr Prides office the answer would have been no and that would weaken the defense case. DSS Doyle knew the procedure so who better the ask whether a strip examination is part of the procedure for a suspect, David was a suspect, again standard procedure, he was alive and ha been at the address. But it is very likely Dr Pride was aware of DI Robinson's considerable doubt of a murder, he fell heavily into the murder-suicide camp. But the defence had its "yes" answer to the correct procedure but it did not have an answer about the strip search having actually been done.
by linz4me on 04:09 pm, 10 Dec 2010
1/ Kennard here uses a typical Stockdale ploy of informing others of the truth from a 'secret' source, on a believe me I'm totally credible basis. Kennard goes onto repeat the 'mythical' oral swab and pronounce again that there was no sexual elements to the deaths all the while avoiding the reality that the tests made upon David (with his frank consent) were common to homicide situations where sexual 'element's might prevail. After all, there were 3 dead women in the house.
2/Here, Kennard, under pressure, removes his lofty presence to the 'safety' of the Scot Watson case (remember he has been asked by Chris, the father of Scot, to shut his yap on the subject) so to 'underline' his neutrality and reinforce his 'credibility' of recognising the innocent from the guilty. Of course he denys again that he has been asked to shut up and I have already published Kennard's own statements that attest to that.
3/Most interestingly here, Kennard takes on the role of defending Robin's siblings who have been hurt by his take of a Karam book and says 'I believe a man of integrity would have righted the incorrect information in the reprint. He didn't, he knowingly, it would appear, allowed false and misleading information to be republished as if it was true.' Just fine, isn't it - the guy lying about the strip search uses the word 'integrity' to promote something he knows is an absolute lie, and which he repeats time again.
4/ This the repeat by mantra to get the message across, no strip search and no intimate tests, made again on the coat tails of the case against Watson which despite Kennard's 'best' efforts
remains as qualified by 2 convictions, when of course David has been acquitted by a Jury and walks free.
5/ Here Kennard, prompted by bro William, again announces the 'facts' which do not exist. But which by repetition are given an apparent, if untruthful, life. This is a display of the conspiracy to sell the lies which Stockdale can then repeat at length, qualifying it at times as having come from 'someone' in the 'know.'
6/ Repeats the earlier distortions and confirms their 'existence' by repetition.
7/ Another repeat using abstractions to form a whole that doesn't exist and never has.
Kennard, Taylor, Stockdale, Fox, Rodie, van beynan, Parker, et al are exposed as filthy persecutors, along with their 'women' folk - they're rotten caught lying out basta..s
Showing posts with label The Strip Search.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Strip Search.. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
For those interested, there have been some promising developments on the Kennard - Stockdale combo.
Though obviously there was an overall pattern these two hate-siters and their fellows used, the specifics of the strip search, intimate tests, blood in barrel were probably the most important. The ongoing attack on the strip search and intimate tests was critical to the hate-siters but not to the truth. They needed the strip search and intimate tests not to have taken place for a number of reasons, foremost it allowed the scratches to have been on David the morning of the murders when plainly they were not, also 'allowing' the presumption he fought with Stephen.
The main (surviving) proponents of the lies about the strip search on TM, Stockdale and Kennard, left a fairly clumsy trail (thanks fellas) to follow. I can only suspect that it is arrogance, or lack of wit, they made them put at risk their entire cause when the probability was that they'd be caught out. With them being caught out it demonstrates the cauldron of hate from where the defamation has arisen, the stalking likewise, and the deliberation misinformation in order to persecute others. Most readers will understand the wider implications of this exposure, both for the damages that can be claimed, in that the defamation was deliberate and intended and based on untruths and in the wider context the continuing persecution of David Bain by these people.
Opinion doesn't allow enhancement, nothing allows enhancement of 'facts' which are not true and which are only used as a weapon against others. That is foremost the hate-sites failure, they had no intention of becoming informed - they started from a particular ill-informed position and used that to attack the Judiciary, a Jury and so on. Another and more obvious failure was not to recognise the incompetence of the messengers - a rag tag bunch of idiots drooling at the mouth over imagined lynchings.
But for now to reflect upon, that two of the main culprits are corralled, encircled by their own hate and lies. Two others consider another hearing in a few weeks and a far greater number sit on the edges of their seats, full of bravado one minute before considering the word 'enjoined' the next.
The main (surviving) proponents of the lies about the strip search on TM, Stockdale and Kennard, left a fairly clumsy trail (thanks fellas) to follow. I can only suspect that it is arrogance, or lack of wit, they made them put at risk their entire cause when the probability was that they'd be caught out. With them being caught out it demonstrates the cauldron of hate from where the defamation has arisen, the stalking likewise, and the deliberation misinformation in order to persecute others. Most readers will understand the wider implications of this exposure, both for the damages that can be claimed, in that the defamation was deliberate and intended and based on untruths and in the wider context the continuing persecution of David Bain by these people.
Opinion doesn't allow enhancement, nothing allows enhancement of 'facts' which are not true and which are only used as a weapon against others. That is foremost the hate-sites failure, they had no intention of becoming informed - they started from a particular ill-informed position and used that to attack the Judiciary, a Jury and so on. Another and more obvious failure was not to recognise the incompetence of the messengers - a rag tag bunch of idiots drooling at the mouth over imagined lynchings.
But for now to reflect upon, that two of the main culprits are corralled, encircled by their own hate and lies. Two others consider another hearing in a few weeks and a far greater number sit on the edges of their seats, full of bravado one minute before considering the word 'enjoined' the next.
Monday, January 17, 2011
More bs from Lindsay 'Gurnard' Kennard, a hate-siter...
sophier8 wrote:
Where is the evidence that there was any intimate swabs taken?
An intimate swap is a wipe taken from the inside of the mouth for DNA purposes It is just like a cotton bud but longer and the wipe on the inside of the cheek captures skin cell and saliva but of which contain DNA unique to the person. The Police Surgeon took it as a normal part of his check to match with DNA from the crime scene and was by then a standard procedure at a homicide.
Edited by linz4me at 8:33 pm, Mon 11 Oct
That's a lot bullcraping Gurnard.
A whole lot, over a long period of time.
I know you are a lawyer and all that, and have done some 'lawyering' as you put it, but how much more bullcrap than this above do you think would be needed to show that you are rotten, defamatory speaking, persecutor with a gurnard up your bottom.
If anyone ever took an intimate sample from your bottom as an example, it would return gurnard dna. That's why I call your Gurnard. Another thing I call you is a pedo-accused, because you posted about that. I've also said you're a drunk pill popper swilling in the trough because you've said you're a drinker, and that you pop an enormous amount of pills every day.
All in Gurnard, you deserve a variety on names, the options of which could keep a team of inventive name callers going for months. But I don't know any inventive name-callers Gurnard, I ain't that flash - in fact I rent my chicken coop out to Goodnewsguy but he never pays any rent.
But you have to hand to Goodnewsguy he's quick sometimes, especially to get out of things, quicker than you dolt brain. He would be happy to call you something like 'Gurnard fish sticking out bottom Kennard, a bs artist Lawyer Queens Counsel' - or 'fishbum' for short.
Where is the evidence that there was any intimate swabs taken?
An intimate swap is a wipe taken from the inside of the mouth for DNA purposes It is just like a cotton bud but longer and the wipe on the inside of the cheek captures skin cell and saliva but of which contain DNA unique to the person. The Police Surgeon took it as a normal part of his check to match with DNA from the crime scene and was by then a standard procedure at a homicide.
Edited by linz4me at 8:33 pm, Mon 11 Oct
That's a lot bullcraping Gurnard.
A whole lot, over a long period of time.
I know you are a lawyer and all that, and have done some 'lawyering' as you put it, but how much more bullcrap than this above do you think would be needed to show that you are rotten, defamatory speaking, persecutor with a gurnard up your bottom.
If anyone ever took an intimate sample from your bottom as an example, it would return gurnard dna. That's why I call your Gurnard. Another thing I call you is a pedo-accused, because you posted about that. I've also said you're a drunk pill popper swilling in the trough because you've said you're a drinker, and that you pop an enormous amount of pills every day.
All in Gurnard, you deserve a variety on names, the options of which could keep a team of inventive name callers going for months. But I don't know any inventive name-callers Gurnard, I ain't that flash - in fact I rent my chicken coop out to Goodnewsguy but he never pays any rent.
But you have to hand to Goodnewsguy he's quick sometimes, especially to get out of things, quicker than you dolt brain. He would be happy to call you something like 'Gurnard fish sticking out bottom Kennard, a bs artist Lawyer Queens Counsel' - or 'fishbum' for short.
Look, Kennard (Gurnard) caught out bsing again.
No wonder Scott Watson's father told him to shut up. Who could blame him, having a lying idiot on your team is no help.....ask Kenty baby.
linz4me wrote:
Ah you have returned to "show the love" As to my source that is I'm afraid "for my eyes only" but is very reliable and in forensics, that plus a touch of common sense. There was never any thought of a sexual element to the deaths so no need to examine David for evidence of sexual activity. From memory he had showered after the paper run and before the washing, but I am happy to be corrected. Let me make it very very clear, I DO NOT believe there was a sexual element to the deaths. Genital swabbing is done in cases where sexual offences are suspected or where the investigation is into a sexual violation as female DNA maybe found linking the suspect to the Complainant. Finally the oral swab that is the least invasive method of obtaining DNA, the skin of the inner cheek is very soft and readily returns skin cells for testing, the other method is by blood sample.
Even Scott Watson whom police acknowledge they were intending to charge with rape and murder only ever gave a blood test
I accept it was eight days later, but there is no evidence Scott had showered or bathed in the day,
We are not discussing Scott Watson. Did your 'source' or 'common sense' tell you this, then? Because neither of them are reliable sources.It seems that first morning they were certainly looking at David as suspect, and in a sexual context.
The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
Edited by cybernana at 6:59 pm, Mon 17 Jan
Quote
cybernana (593 ) 6:58 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31413
How odd for those following this exchange that Trevor William Fox (luckytrader) arrived immediately to discuss the subject of penis's.
linz4me wrote:
Ah you have returned to "show the love" As to my source that is I'm afraid "for my eyes only" but is very reliable and in forensics, that plus a touch of common sense. There was never any thought of a sexual element to the deaths so no need to examine David for evidence of sexual activity. From memory he had showered after the paper run and before the washing, but I am happy to be corrected. Let me make it very very clear, I DO NOT believe there was a sexual element to the deaths. Genital swabbing is done in cases where sexual offences are suspected or where the investigation is into a sexual violation as female DNA maybe found linking the suspect to the Complainant. Finally the oral swab that is the least invasive method of obtaining DNA, the skin of the inner cheek is very soft and readily returns skin cells for testing, the other method is by blood sample.
Even Scott Watson whom police acknowledge they were intending to charge with rape and murder only ever gave a blood test
I accept it was eight days later, but there is no evidence Scott had showered or bathed in the day,
We are not discussing Scott Watson. Did your 'source' or 'common sense' tell you this, then? Because neither of them are reliable sources.It seems that first morning they were certainly looking at David as suspect, and in a sexual context.
The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
Edited by cybernana at 6:59 pm, Mon 17 Jan
Quote
cybernana (593 ) 6:58 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31413
How odd for those following this exchange that Trevor William Fox (luckytrader) arrived immediately to discuss the subject of penis's.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Has anybody any information from the media or
any where else that David Bain was given oral swabs and not intimate swabs during his strip search on the day of the deaths of his family?
I'm asking because the only link I've been able to track down as the originating source is to a hate-site member Lindsay Kennard. All help appreciated and treated in confidence.
I'm asking because the only link I've been able to track down as the originating source is to a hate-site member Lindsay Kennard. All help appreciated and treated in confidence.
Friday, January 14, 2011
That strip search that Stockdale keeps lying about and the 'oral' swab he substitutes for genital swab thanks to 'I understand' .....
'information' from another hate-siter Lindsay Gurnard, and his reliable 'I understand' companion fiddly Ralph Taylor.
I've posted this before....from Trial 2,
Doyle's evidence cross examination p150. Context is why they didn't do the GSR tests on David - Doyle's answer was that it would have been insensitive.
Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
A. He was examined by a doctor.
Q. When was that done?
A. Later that day.
Q. On that same day?
A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
A. Oh I’m sure it is.
Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
A. That is correct.
Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
Q. All of those are done?
A. Yes.
Now that would be clear enough for most idiots, even an idiot like Stockdale but he continues with his lies - basically accusing the Defence of not leading evidence that they Crown were silent on denying....
Remember the obvious as I pointed out in an earlier post as well as above...The easy answer is that both Det Dunne and Van Turnhout were present in the room when Dr Pryde did his examination. If (a) there was no strip search they would have said so at second trial or (b) if there was and they had seen the scratches then they would have said so. They would have shouted it from the roof tops.
So that Stockdale is lying is covered twice, once by actual evidence and secondly by the absence of evidence in denial, on a point it is to be remembered would have been dramatically helpful to a weak Crown case.
But still the lying dogs Stockdale and Taylor persist, so we'll go to the complete proof that they are rotten liars. The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
So the Doctor didn't lie, didn't 'forget' because he 'asked' a question of David. He followed the procedure signed the necessary documents and handed the sealed test articles to the Detective in attendance.
So this is what we expect from the dirty dog Stockdale, he who claims to want Justice for Robin Bain, who he says cannot defend himself in death, and how does Stockdale achieve this? By casting aspersion on another dead man. A man who no doubt still has family and must abide silently while their father, husband, uncle whatever is daily maligned by the piece of crap who in 'defending' the dead Robin Bain maligns and persecutes his only surviving child with pages after pages of lies. You're a dog Stockdale, a miserable piece of crap mongrel.
Read it again dogface....
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
You should know what a penile shaft is, you've got one stuck on your shoulders that's why your piece of turd mate persecutor bro Taylor meets you in the bike shed.
I've posted this before....from Trial 2,
Doyle's evidence cross examination p150. Context is why they didn't do the GSR tests on David - Doyle's answer was that it would have been insensitive.
Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
A. He was examined by a doctor.
Q. When was that done?
A. Later that day.
Q. On that same day?
A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
A. Oh I’m sure it is.
Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
A. That is correct.
Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
Q. All of those are done?
A. Yes.
Now that would be clear enough for most idiots, even an idiot like Stockdale but he continues with his lies - basically accusing the Defence of not leading evidence that they Crown were silent on denying....
Remember the obvious as I pointed out in an earlier post as well as above...The easy answer is that both Det Dunne and Van Turnhout were present in the room when Dr Pryde did his examination. If (a) there was no strip search they would have said so at second trial or (b) if there was and they had seen the scratches then they would have said so. They would have shouted it from the roof tops.
So that Stockdale is lying is covered twice, once by actual evidence and secondly by the absence of evidence in denial, on a point it is to be remembered would have been dramatically helpful to a weak Crown case.
But still the lying dogs Stockdale and Taylor persist, so we'll go to the complete proof that they are rotten liars. The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
So the Doctor didn't lie, didn't 'forget' because he 'asked' a question of David. He followed the procedure signed the necessary documents and handed the sealed test articles to the Detective in attendance.
So this is what we expect from the dirty dog Stockdale, he who claims to want Justice for Robin Bain, who he says cannot defend himself in death, and how does Stockdale achieve this? By casting aspersion on another dead man. A man who no doubt still has family and must abide silently while their father, husband, uncle whatever is daily maligned by the piece of crap who in 'defending' the dead Robin Bain maligns and persecutes his only surviving child with pages after pages of lies. You're a dog Stockdale, a miserable piece of crap mongrel.
Read it again dogface....
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
You should know what a penile shaft is, you've got one stuck on your shoulders that's why your piece of turd mate persecutor bro Taylor meets you in the bike shed.
The empty headed idiot Mike Stockdale
No ,ta,you are lying about David Bain being strip-searched.You know full well that nobody has ever said that they saw him being strip-searched.Dr Pryde never said that,and I bet if you were to ask D/S Dunne or Constable Van Turnhout,who were in the room with David Bain when Dr Pryde examined him,they would tell you he was not strip searched.And what is more,David Bain knows he was not strip searched.Dr Pryde asked him about those bruises on his head,and asked him if he had any other bruises.He wouldn't have asked him that question if he had strip-serached him,because he would have seen those other marks.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:52 pm, Wed 15 Dec #14790
The above is one example of the 100s of times he has made this stupid claim. He doesn't have the brains to work out that proving David had the scratches on his chest the morning of the killings would have been helpful to the Crown Case. But they never proved it, not one person attending the scene made the claim. Not one Crown witness claimed David Bain was never strip searched, but the records of the examination and at least two police officers confirmed it. It would take an ex girlfriend to make a claim about the scratches days after the murders, backed up by a prison officer who only took 15 years to 'remember.'
Repeat, not one witness attending the scene, or the examination of David saw any scratches. To now say that is the defence's fault because they didn't ask some question or answer is pathetic and prejudicial. But it goes further the Crown never contested that there had been a strip search and that equally proves that it happened. Idiot Stockdale, a pedo-apologist, proven liar and stalker suggests that the Crown were happy to sit on their hands over the issue which most damning to their case. The fact they chose not to challenge it was because it was true, no more or less, David Bain was strip searched and no evidence of scratches on his chest were recorded, not in the first trial or the second.
You are a lying piece of crap Stockdale without the necessary intelligence to understand the illogical rantings you construct. Much like your idiotic assertion that Mrs Laney was a defence witness. You're a sheer idiot.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:52 pm, Wed 15 Dec #14790
The above is one example of the 100s of times he has made this stupid claim. He doesn't have the brains to work out that proving David had the scratches on his chest the morning of the killings would have been helpful to the Crown Case. But they never proved it, not one person attending the scene made the claim. Not one Crown witness claimed David Bain was never strip searched, but the records of the examination and at least two police officers confirmed it. It would take an ex girlfriend to make a claim about the scratches days after the murders, backed up by a prison officer who only took 15 years to 'remember.'
Repeat, not one witness attending the scene, or the examination of David saw any scratches. To now say that is the defence's fault because they didn't ask some question or answer is pathetic and prejudicial. But it goes further the Crown never contested that there had been a strip search and that equally proves that it happened. Idiot Stockdale, a pedo-apologist, proven liar and stalker suggests that the Crown were happy to sit on their hands over the issue which most damning to their case. The fact they chose not to challenge it was because it was true, no more or less, David Bain was strip searched and no evidence of scratches on his chest were recorded, not in the first trial or the second.
You are a lying piece of crap Stockdale without the necessary intelligence to understand the illogical rantings you construct. Much like your idiotic assertion that Mrs Laney was a defence witness. You're a sheer idiot.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Fiddler Ralph Taylor having a tanty just because he got caught out bull pooping..
What a tanty Ralphie, I bet you feel all fiddly. So because nobody told you, that's their fault. But hang on Ralphie if you can stay out of the bike sheds for 5 mins, how do you expect to be taken as anything but a dirty fiddler persecutor when you're telling lies all the time, then when you get caught out you blame other people for not telling you.
You're a dirty fiddler liar Ralph Taylor.
These are not lies or untruths.I to asked for sources regarding blood in the barrel sometime ago but none of you came forth including yourself cybernana. I googled and searched and came up with nothing.However the transcripts did mentioned as I later learnt that Mr Hentscell did find blood in the barrel.But I did qualify my query by asking whether the blood was DNA profiled or cross matched for blood group.My information was that it was not.
But the in fact the the issue regarding blood in the barrel is entirely problematic and rather a non issue.This is because Robin's fingerprints were never found on his son's rifle and the reality is smudges,wipes etc do not make fingerprints.But David did leave his pristine prints on his gun.But the Defence have attempted to cloud and obscure the issue by suggesting his prints belonged to an earlier period (some several months earlier)and perhaps the blood on the rifle itself was maybe animal blood.Don't you really think that stretches.credulaity somewhat?I dont't think they say this about Stephen's fingerprints found on the silencer.Also the fact that how can it be that David's fingerprints ,belonging to a hunting trip, actually remained intact after the shooting spree at Every St. Cyber and co the reality and fact that Robin's prints were not found on the gun has to be faced and not explained away by Defence obfuscation .Again that reality is ever so transparent if you accept as some of DB supporters claim Robin had to clear a misfeed before topping himself.Surely then he would of left his finger prints on the rifle.
Edited by jeeves-50 at 8:37 pm, Thu 13 Jan
Quote
jeeves-50 (3 ) 8:27 pm, Thu 13 Jan #15366
You're a dirty fiddler liar Ralph Taylor.
These are not lies or untruths.I to asked for sources regarding blood in the barrel sometime ago but none of you came forth including yourself cybernana. I googled and searched and came up with nothing.However the transcripts did mentioned as I later learnt that Mr Hentscell did find blood in the barrel.But I did qualify my query by asking whether the blood was DNA profiled or cross matched for blood group.My information was that it was not.
But the in fact the the issue regarding blood in the barrel is entirely problematic and rather a non issue.This is because Robin's fingerprints were never found on his son's rifle and the reality is smudges,wipes etc do not make fingerprints.But David did leave his pristine prints on his gun.But the Defence have attempted to cloud and obscure the issue by suggesting his prints belonged to an earlier period (some several months earlier)and perhaps the blood on the rifle itself was maybe animal blood.Don't you really think that stretches.credulaity somewhat?I dont't think they say this about Stephen's fingerprints found on the silencer.Also the fact that how can it be that David's fingerprints ,belonging to a hunting trip, actually remained intact after the shooting spree at Every St. Cyber and co the reality and fact that Robin's prints were not found on the gun has to be faced and not explained away by Defence obfuscation .Again that reality is ever so transparent if you accept as some of DB supporters claim Robin had to clear a misfeed before topping himself.Surely then he would of left his finger prints on the rifle.
Edited by jeeves-50 at 8:37 pm, Thu 13 Jan
Quote
jeeves-50 (3 ) 8:27 pm, Thu 13 Jan #15366
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Even when 'fessing up' Stockdale still lies.
As for being "shown up",well I do admit to making a couple of mistakes.I remember shortly after I started posting I said that the opticians receptionist had made a note that David Bain had been wearing his mother's glasses when he brought his in to be repaired. But it turned out it was from a previous visit.cyber chipped me on that one for a couple of weeks.And then there was one where I said Denise Laney was a defence witness.I got that from the Court of Appeal hearings report,turned out it was a typo. I can't recall any others off the top of my head. But really best you don't debate with me,ta,you know I will always get the better of you.
Edited by supersleuth at 10:57 am, Wed 12 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 10:53 am, Wed 12 Jan #15271
The less of Stockdale being 'shown up' is fairly exhaustive, but here's something of a summary.
1/ He said there was no blood found in the rifle barrel.
2/He said there was no blood found on Robin's right shoe.
3/He said there are no published photographs in the press of any suicide demonstrations from the trial.
4/He said Robin couldn't have reached the silencer when suiciding.
5/He said that Robin couldn't have suicided with the silencer on the rifle.
6/He said a reproduction of a foot print was actually the print.
7/He said that Sanderson's testimony wasn't material to the trial or the previous MOJ.
8/He said that the blood droplets couldn't have got on Robin's shoe when he suicided.
9/ He said there were no blood smears on Robin's hands.
10/ He said there were no injuries to Robin right hand.
Well, that's 13 including what he 'admitted' above. One of those admissions shows his absolute stupidity in that he couldn't follow that the defence appeal aspects of the Crown case, new evidence, directions to the jury and so forth - they don't appeal evidence given or not given by their own witnesses, which shows what a bloody idiot the guy is with his insistence that Denise Laney was a defence witness. That he couldn't figure that out was an early indicator of what a dingbat moron he was going to prove to be.
Whoops better add another important 2.
11. He said David wasn't stripped searched.
12. He said intimate samples weren't taken from David.
Edited by supersleuth at 10:57 am, Wed 12 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 10:53 am, Wed 12 Jan #15271
The less of Stockdale being 'shown up' is fairly exhaustive, but here's something of a summary.
1/ He said there was no blood found in the rifle barrel.
2/He said there was no blood found on Robin's right shoe.
3/He said there are no published photographs in the press of any suicide demonstrations from the trial.
4/He said Robin couldn't have reached the silencer when suiciding.
5/He said that Robin couldn't have suicided with the silencer on the rifle.
6/He said a reproduction of a foot print was actually the print.
7/He said that Sanderson's testimony wasn't material to the trial or the previous MOJ.
8/He said that the blood droplets couldn't have got on Robin's shoe when he suicided.
9/ He said there were no blood smears on Robin's hands.
10/ He said there were no injuries to Robin right hand.
Well, that's 13 including what he 'admitted' above. One of those admissions shows his absolute stupidity in that he couldn't follow that the defence appeal aspects of the Crown case, new evidence, directions to the jury and so forth - they don't appeal evidence given or not given by their own witnesses, which shows what a bloody idiot the guy is with his insistence that Denise Laney was a defence witness. That he couldn't figure that out was an early indicator of what a dingbat moron he was going to prove to be.
Whoops better add another important 2.
11. He said David wasn't stripped searched.
12. He said intimate samples weren't taken from David.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Rachael Membery, an arse..pe from Otorohanga.
Attention TM
The following posts of goldnkiwi # 31234 - 31241 are all defamatory and may be in breach of copy right. The posts are designed to imply that Joe Karam was dishonest in confirming evidence that David Bain was strip searched by the Police, they also imply that there is proof in the writings of Joe Karam that David was guilty and that he wore glasses which did not belong to him.
The url is;
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=625&topic=7
The actual evidence in respect of the strip search is factually reprinted below from the trial transcript. This evidence is not opinion and was not contested by the Crown, having come from Crown witnesses. The poster goldnkiwi is a psychopathic moron with an apparent interest in bestiality and donkeys. Unless Trade Me somehow have 'another' copy of the trial transcript TM's publication of this material from goldnkiwi is defamatory and untrue and should be removed immediately with the poster banned. It's late December 2010 and TM continue to allow hate-siters to post defamatory comment and clear lies in their efforts to defame Joe Karam and David Bain whilst also continuing to persecute David for his father's crimes. It's damaging and not a good look.
Yours faithfully
etc
Doyle's evidence cross examination p150. Context is why they didn't do the GSR tests on David - Doyle's answer was that it would have been insensitive.
Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
A. He was examined by a doctor.
Q. When was that done?
A. Later that day.
Q. On that same day?
A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
A. Oh I’m sure it is.
Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
A. That is correct.
Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
Q. All of those are done?
A. Yes.
The following posts of goldnkiwi # 31234 - 31241 are all defamatory and may be in breach of copy right. The posts are designed to imply that Joe Karam was dishonest in confirming evidence that David Bain was strip searched by the Police, they also imply that there is proof in the writings of Joe Karam that David was guilty and that he wore glasses which did not belong to him.
The url is;
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=625&topic=7
The actual evidence in respect of the strip search is factually reprinted below from the trial transcript. This evidence is not opinion and was not contested by the Crown, having come from Crown witnesses. The poster goldnkiwi is a psychopathic moron with an apparent interest in bestiality and donkeys. Unless Trade Me somehow have 'another' copy of the trial transcript TM's publication of this material from goldnkiwi is defamatory and untrue and should be removed immediately with the poster banned. It's late December 2010 and TM continue to allow hate-siters to post defamatory comment and clear lies in their efforts to defame Joe Karam and David Bain whilst also continuing to persecute David for his father's crimes. It's damaging and not a good look.
Yours faithfully
etc
Doyle's evidence cross examination p150. Context is why they didn't do the GSR tests on David - Doyle's answer was that it would have been insensitive.
Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
A. He was examined by a doctor.
Q. When was that done?
A. Later that day.
Q. On that same day?
A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
A. Oh I’m sure it is.
Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
A. That is correct.
Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
Q. All of those are done?
A. Yes.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The kiddie fiddler bros have been caught out again....
William Rodie and co are spitting big time because Detective Sergeant Doyle gave the evidence about David being stripped search and standard homicide suspect tests made and a second officer confirm taking receipt of the sealed samples including the time. But that couldn't be true because kiddie fiddler bros said so. It's all a clever trick according to them. Doyle wasn't defending not having done GSR tests, that never happened, even Dr Pryde is an invention, because he's deceased now he can't have been alive in 1994 and those tests confirmed by Doyle can't have happened and those results passed to Detective Lodge
p488 Lodge's evidence (ie after completion of the examination)
Q. At approximately 12.35 pm did you receive a sealed medical examination kit and documents concerning David Bain from Dr Pryde?
A. Yes that’s correct, at 12.35.
was actually a couple of left over roast pork sandwiches that Dr Pryde was sharing with the team.
What a bunch of fiddling losers. I think it may be time to out jmbh1 and captainjess, people have a right to know that who their children and families are at risk from. captainjess thinks it's free speech to lie in a manner deliberately intended to harm others, he or she thinks they are entitled to persecute David Bain because a kiddie fiddler father must be protected at all costs, a wayward bro must be protected into death. Well, Robin Bain will not be protected from the truth that he was a fiddler with blood all over his hands and the blood spatter most likely of his son Stephen found on his right shoe going from left to right. captainjess asks why (would the police strip search a victim,) well air head because he was being treated as a suspect as was proper and it was only later that the police, to enhance their weak case against him, made claim that the wasn't a suspect early on to add to the prejudicial. Of course he was a suspect, as was Robin, but were intimate samples taken from Robin? As for the idiot Rachael Dickberry, who claims to be a law graduate, how could a law graduate possibly take the unproven claim of Fiddler Kennard over evidence, it beggars belief but shows the reason why she had to be outed - because she is a dangerous, deranged hate-siter and probably an elections cheat.
I see that captainjess expressed horror about the 'defamation' of her hate-site buddies here, adequately answered by beyond on Counterspin - The Sick Truth. If you weren't a regurgitated hate-siter yourself captainjess, or if you were a person of any decency you wouldn't support blatant liars who have revealed more than once their inclinations toward paedophilia, and not least their stalking of posters and their families. So captainjess for all your ideals you are no better than the Stockdales, Fox, Rodies and Taylors, all one and the same - rowing up shit creek applauded by the Camerons, Williams, OBriens, Currans, Newtons et al.
p488 Lodge's evidence (ie after completion of the examination)
Q. At approximately 12.35 pm did you receive a sealed medical examination kit and documents concerning David Bain from Dr Pryde?
A. Yes that’s correct, at 12.35.
was actually a couple of left over roast pork sandwiches that Dr Pryde was sharing with the team.
What a bunch of fiddling losers. I think it may be time to out jmbh1 and captainjess, people have a right to know that who their children and families are at risk from. captainjess thinks it's free speech to lie in a manner deliberately intended to harm others, he or she thinks they are entitled to persecute David Bain because a kiddie fiddler father must be protected at all costs, a wayward bro must be protected into death. Well, Robin Bain will not be protected from the truth that he was a fiddler with blood all over his hands and the blood spatter most likely of his son Stephen found on his right shoe going from left to right. captainjess asks why (would the police strip search a victim,) well air head because he was being treated as a suspect as was proper and it was only later that the police, to enhance their weak case against him, made claim that the wasn't a suspect early on to add to the prejudicial. Of course he was a suspect, as was Robin, but were intimate samples taken from Robin? As for the idiot Rachael Dickberry, who claims to be a law graduate, how could a law graduate possibly take the unproven claim of Fiddler Kennard over evidence, it beggars belief but shows the reason why she had to be outed - because she is a dangerous, deranged hate-siter and probably an elections cheat.
I see that captainjess expressed horror about the 'defamation' of her hate-site buddies here, adequately answered by beyond on Counterspin - The Sick Truth. If you weren't a regurgitated hate-siter yourself captainjess, or if you were a person of any decency you wouldn't support blatant liars who have revealed more than once their inclinations toward paedophilia, and not least their stalking of posters and their families. So captainjess for all your ideals you are no better than the Stockdales, Fox, Rodies and Taylors, all one and the same - rowing up shit creek applauded by the Camerons, Williams, OBriens, Currans, Newtons et al.
Rachael newberry, dickberryhead - a come-lately hate-siter
uses as her reference material to promote her persecution and lies campaign none other that Lindsay Kennard an alcoholic, pip popping pedo-accused as a reference. Ever heard of using the evidence dickberry head? Supported by jmbh1 Jay from Chch a co-offender of Kennards. This how they work, one tells a lie and repeats it until they all tell the same lie. As in the foregoing blog below this, evidence was given by the police as to the strip search and intimate samples - but that doesn't stop these kiddie fiddlers protecting one of their own.
I'm still trying to find the info on the strip search. Can anyone help me out on this?
Quotecaptainjess (0 ) 11:27 pm, Mon 6 Dec #31048
captainjess wrote:
I'm still trying to find the info on the strip search. Can anyone help me out on this?
Dr looked at knee at station apparently and then took an 'intimate' swab whatever that is, which has been interpreted to mean genital, for a genital swab to be taken it is then presumed that there was necessarily naked, hence strip searched.Linz says oral dna swab
Edited by goldnkiwi at 12:37 am, Tue 7 Dec
Quotegoldnkiwi (610 ) 12:22 am, Tue 7 Dec #31049
goldnkiwi wrote:
Dr looked at knee at station apparently and then took an 'intimate' swab whatever that is, which has been interpreted to mean genital, for a genital swab to be taken it is then presued that there was necessarily naked, hence strip searched.Linz says oral dna swab
No swab was ever taken, goldnkiwi. This is a mis-interpretation of evidence given in court. The defence team asked if swabs etc. were part of normal procedure and, when told yes, implied that they had been taken from David during a strip search.
In fact, there is no evidence that any swabs or a strip search ever took place.
Quotejmhb51 (1 ) 12:35 am, Tue 7 Dec #31051
To repeat....
Doyle's evidence cross examination p150. Context is why they didn't do the GSR tests on David - Doyle's answer was that it would have been insensitive.
Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
A. He was examined by a doctor.
Q. When was that done?
A. Later that day.
Q. On that same day?
A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
A. Oh I’m sure it is.
Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
A. That is correct.
Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
Q. All of those are done?
A. Yes.
I'm still trying to find the info on the strip search. Can anyone help me out on this?
Quotecaptainjess (0 ) 11:27 pm, Mon 6 Dec #31048
captainjess wrote:
I'm still trying to find the info on the strip search. Can anyone help me out on this?
Dr looked at knee at station apparently and then took an 'intimate' swab whatever that is, which has been interpreted to mean genital, for a genital swab to be taken it is then presumed that there was necessarily naked, hence strip searched.Linz says oral dna swab
Edited by goldnkiwi at 12:37 am, Tue 7 Dec
Quotegoldnkiwi (610 ) 12:22 am, Tue 7 Dec #31049
goldnkiwi wrote:
Dr looked at knee at station apparently and then took an 'intimate' swab whatever that is, which has been interpreted to mean genital, for a genital swab to be taken it is then presued that there was necessarily naked, hence strip searched.Linz says oral dna swab
No swab was ever taken, goldnkiwi. This is a mis-interpretation of evidence given in court. The defence team asked if swabs etc. were part of normal procedure and, when told yes, implied that they had been taken from David during a strip search.
In fact, there is no evidence that any swabs or a strip search ever took place.
Quotejmhb51 (1 ) 12:35 am, Tue 7 Dec #31051
To repeat....
Doyle's evidence cross examination p150. Context is why they didn't do the GSR tests on David - Doyle's answer was that it would have been insensitive.
Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
A. He was examined by a doctor.
Q. When was that done?
A. Later that day.
Q. On that same day?
A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
A. Oh I’m sure it is.
Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
A. That is correct.
Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
Q. All of those are done?
A. Yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)